[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2285-2291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00105]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

30 CFR Part 75

[Docket No. MSHA-2014-0019]
RIN 1219-AB78


Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in Underground 
Mines

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening the comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is reopening 
the rulemaking record and requesting additional comments on the 
Agency's proposed rule on Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile 
Machines in Underground Mines which was published in the Federal 
Register on September 2, 2015. The proposed rule would require 
underground coal mine operators to equip coal hauling machines and 
scoops with proximity detection systems. Miners working near these 
machines face pinning, crushing, and striking hazards that result in 
accidents involving life-threatening injuries and death.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published September 2, 
2015 (80 FR 53070) is reopened. Comments must be received by midnight 
Daylight Saving Time on February 8, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments and informational materials, identified by 
RIN 1219-AB78 or Docket No. MSHA-2014-0019 by one of the following 
methods:
     Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     E-Mail: [email protected].
     Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and 
Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia 
22202-5452.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 201 12th Street South, Suite 
4E401, Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Sign in at the receptionist's 
desk on the 4th Floor East, Suite 4E401.
     Fax: 202-693-9441.
    Instructions: All submissions must include RIN 1219-AB78 or Docket 
No. MSHA-2014-0019. Do not include personal information that you do not 
want publicly disclosed; MSHA will

[[Page 2286]]

post all comments without change, including any personal information 
provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to 
http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp. 
To read background documents, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Review 
the docket in person at MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and 
Variances, 201 12th Street South, Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 
Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th Floor East, Suite 4E401.
    Email notification: To subscribe to receive email notification when 
the Agency publishes rulemaking documents in the Federal Register, go 
to http://www.msha.gov/subscriptions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila McConnell, Director, Office of 
Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at 
[email protected] (email), 202-693-9440 (voice), or 202-693-
9441 (facsimile).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    On September 2, 2015, MSHA published a proposed rule, Proximity 
Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in Underground mines (80 FR 
53070). MSHA is reopening the rulemaking record and requesting comments 
on issues that were raised by commenters during the comment period and 
on issues that developed after the record closed.
    MSHA also observed the operation of proximity detection systems on 
both continuous mining machines and mobile machines (shuttle cars, ram 
cars and scoops) on working sections in the United States and South 
Africa after the record closed. There are 106 mobile machines operating 
on working sections equipped with proximity detection systems in the 
United States. MSHA visited six mines that operated 79 of these 
machines. These mines varied by physical, geological, and environmental 
conditions. MSHA is also including in the rulemaking record MSHA's 
field-trip report on the use of proximity detection in South Africa's 
underground coal mines and materials presented at the National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Proximity 
Detection Partnership Meeting held on June 22, 2016.

II. Request for Comments

1. Requirements for Proximity Detection Systems

    Proposed Sec.  75.1733(b)(1) would require that a proximity 
detection system cause a machine to stop before contacting a miner 
except for a miner who is in the on-board operator's compartment. MSHA 
requested comments on the types of machine movement the proximity 
detection system should stop. Commenters did not support the total de-
energization of all functions of the equipment. One commenter noted 
that a ``stop all machine movement'' requirement cannot be applied 
universally to all mobile equipment covered by this proposed rule. The 
commenter noted that mine operators need the flexibility to configure 
proximity detection systems and machine responses based on the 
individual applications needed underground. In support of this comment, 
the commenter stated that machines that interact with other equipment, 
machines that require a ground-standing operator to be in contact with 
the machine, and machines that lack specific capabilities for motion 
control may need allowances outside of prescriptive requirements. As an 
example, the commenter stated that shuttle cars and ram cars do not 
require a miner to stand on the ground nearby to perform required 
tasks; however, scoops require a miner to touch or be near the machine 
to do certain work.
    One commenter also noted that proximity detection systems present 
significant problems for performing trouble-shooting and maintenance 
activities. The commenter provided an example of a mechanic trying to 
identify a leaking hydraulic hose; the mechanic must remove the miner-
wearable component for the machine to be started because the mechanic 
has to be inside a red zone to diagnose the source of the leak.
    The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 
also commented that requiring all machine movement to stop would 
potentially limit the development and application of advanced 
technology for selective shutdown features. NIOSH stated that currently 
available systems are not capable of providing the level of protection 
required in the industry while maintaining the operator's freedom to 
efficiently perform the job. NIOSH further stated that to be acceptable 
to the miners and to avoid false alarms, a proximity detection system 
must provide the necessary protection while still allowing normal 
operation of the machine.
    MSHA observed mobile machines with proximity detection systems 
operating during coal production on working sections. These proximity 
detection systems functioned as designed to prevent pinning, crushing, 
and striking accidents. Four of the six mines that MSHA visited in the 
United States, after the record closed, had proximity detection systems 
on mobile machines and continuous mining machines on the working 
section except for full-face mining machines. The mobile machines 
included shuttle cars, ram cars, and scoops. These mine operators 
provided all miners on these working sections with miner-wearable 
components.
    MSHA solicits additional comments on whether currently available 
proximity detection systems are capable of preventing coal hauling 
machines and scoops from pinning, crushing, and striking miners while 
maintaining the machine operator's freedom to efficiently perform the 
job.
    Under proposed Sec.  75.1733(b)(1), MSHA would consider stopping a 
coal hauling machine or scoop to consist of causing it to cease 
tramming or articulating any part of a machine that could cause the 
machine to contact a miner. Tramming means to move the machine in a 
forward or reverse direction. Articulating includes an act of moving or 
pivoting at a joint, such as when a mobile machine may pivot towards a 
rib such that the movement could result in pinning, striking, or 
crushing a miner. Under the proposal, the machine would remain stopped 
while any miner is within a programmed stop zone. Unexpected tramming 
and articulation in the direction of a miner may be hazardous. However, 
MSHA is considering whether it is necessary to stop the movement of all 
parts of the machine, such as auxiliary movements, as long as the 
tramming and articulating machine motion that can pin, crush, or strike 
a miner is stopped. In MSHA's experience, striking, pinning, or 
crushing hazards are not caused by auxiliary functions such as 
operation of a pump motor or diesel engine, ram extension, winch 
movement, vertical bucket movement, or battery lift.
    MSHA is also aware of proximity detection system features that only 
allow authorized miners to perform maintenance. For example, an 
authorized miner may swipe an identification card over a card reader 
mounted on the machine or have a separate miner-wearable component that 
is programmed to allow a miner to perform maintenance. The proximity 
detection system records each time

[[Page 2287]]

maintenance is performed. Miners authorized to perform maintenance on 
machines equipped with proximity detection systems would continue to 
observe standard safety procedures, such as removing stored energy and 
blocking the machine to prevent motion, while maintaining and repairing 
the machine.
    MSHA is considering a revision to proposed Sec.  75.1733(b)(1) that 
would require a proximity detection system to stop a machine from 
tramming or articulating before contacting a miner except for a miner 
who (i) is in the on-board operator's compartment, or (ii) performing 
maintenance with the proximity detection system in maintenance mode.
    MSHA observed a miner and a scoop operator perform maintenance by 
changing the battery on a scoop equipped with a proximity detection 
system. The miner stayed near the scoop, directed the scoop operator's 
movement of the machine, and maintained a safe position outside of the 
proximity detection system's warning zone. MSHA also observed a ram car 
equipped with a proximity detection system that was installed and 
programmed to modify its warning and shutdown zone dimensions to allow 
miners to safely approach the machine to perform maintenance and 
repairs without causing it to shut down. The warning and shutdown zones 
extended around the entire machine perimeter during normal operation; 
however, activating the parking brake reduced these zones to encompass 
only the pinch point areas around the articulation joint.
    MSHA solicits comments on the types of machine movement a proximity 
detection system should allow for miners to perform necessary 
maintenance without exposing them to pinning, crushing, or striking 
hazards. MSHA also solicits comments on miners' and mine operators' 
experiences with proximity detection systems that allow a miner to 
conduct maintenance on a machine without activating the stop movement 
function.
    Several commenters also noted that sudden stopping of equipment 
presents hazards for on-board machine operators. A commenter noted that 
sudden stops and equipment shut downs, like any other unexpected 
operations, could put the operator of the machine at risk of injury or 
death based on the size and speed of the machine, and other related 
factors. One commenter stated concerns that the requirement to stop the 
machine before contacting a miner could create a hazard for machine 
operators, especially diesel-powered machine operators since their 
ground speed is typically faster than electric-powered machines. 
However, another commenter stated that MSHA should not require that 
machines slow down before stopping because some machines, such as 
battery-powered direct current traction drives, do not have this 
capability; in some cases, it is more important to stop the machine as 
fast as possible to prevent contact with miners.
    NIOSH commented that field tests of proximity detection systems on 
continuous mining machines and input from stakeholders found that 
detection range, environmental effects/limitations, detection accuracy, 
and system repeatability are considered critical parameters. MSHA 
observed mobile machines operating in mines in the United States with 
properly functioning proximity detection systems of various 
manufacturers with appropriate zone dimensions. These mobile machines 
worked in a range of seam heights, in dry and wet conditions, on 
varying grades, with and without wire mesh, with various mine 
ventilation controls. In MSHA's experience, mine operators work with 
machine manufacturers and proximity detection system manufacturers to 
determine the appropriate warning and shutdown zones for the specific 
mining conditions and practices that the machine encounters. MSHA is 
aware that proximity detection system manufacturers provide site-
specific testing during commissioning of proximity detection systems. 
MSHA also observed proximity detection system testing used to confirm 
appropriate zone dimensions for the equipment and the mining conditions 
at the time of commissioning. MSHA solicits additional comments on 
appropriate warning and stopping zones for each type of machine 
movement and various mining conditions including any differences in 
cost for differing conditions or machines.
    Current NIOSH research is identifying critical parameters that 
impact the performance of proximity detection systems on mobile 
machines, such as stopping distances and deceleration rates. MSHA is 
aware that NIOSH research on proximity detection systems for 
underground mobile equipment is scheduled to conclude in September, 
2018. Several commenters expressed concern that the Agency will require 
proximity detection systems to be installed on coal haulage machines 
and scoops before the findings from NIOSH research on proximity 
detection systems on underground mobile machines are released. MSHA is 
also aware that some mine operators have installed and are operating 
proximity detection systems on mobile machines. MSHA observed 
variations in the installation, maintenance and performance of these 
systems. MSHA anticipates that a final rule would provide minimum 
standards for installation, performance, maintenance, and recordkeeping 
to assure that miners are adequately protected. MSHA observed several 
dynamic tests of mobile machines equipped with proximity detection 
systems in which the machine decelerated to a full stop without injury 
to the on-board operator. MSHA also observed warning and shutdown zone 
incursions on mobile machines equipped with proximity detection systems 
that are being used on working sections during normal mine production 
operations. These proximity detection systems appropriately slowed and/
or stopped these mobile machines without injuring the on-board machine 
operator. MSHA is not aware of any on-board operator injuries resulting 
from a proximity detection system decelerating and/or stopping a mobile 
machine.
    MSHA will continue to work with original equipment manufacturers, 
proximity detection system manufacturers, NIOSH, States, and mine 
operators to consider the benefits and timing of requiring proximity 
detection systems on mobile machines in underground coal mines.
    MSHA solicited and received several comments on how the use of 
proximity detection systems and the overlap of proximity detection 
system protection zones on multiple types of machines operating on the 
same working section might affect miners' work positions. One commenter 
stated that testing, which was conducted in a controlled environment, 
demonstrated that it was impossible to provide full coverage on the 
rear section of the coal hauler without creating a shutdown zone in the 
locations where the continuous mining machine operator was required to 
stand. A modification to the system allowed the shutdown zone to shrink 
as the coal hauler backed into the loading position. Due to the shape 
of the zone, however, the modification removed protective coverage of 
the rear corners of the coal hauler.
    MSHA observed continuous mining machines and mobile machines 
equipped with proximity detection systems successfully interact during 
production on working sections where all of the miners had miner-
wearable components. MSHA solicits additional information regarding how 
coal hauling machines using proximity detection systems work with 
continuous mining machines equipped with proximity

[[Page 2288]]

detection systems while allowing continuous mining machine operators to 
remain in a safe location. MSHA is interested in additional information 
describing the installation and programming of proximity detection 
systems and examples of related work practices established to assure 
that the continuous mining machine operator remains outside of the coal 
hauling machine warning and shutdown zones.
    Another commenter observed, during tests of proximity detection 
systems on continuous mining machines and battery haulers, instances in 
which miners (primarily continuous mining machine operators) could not 
properly perform necessary tasks without getting closer to the 
continuous mining machine than the proximity detection system allowed. 
The commenter noted that without the capability to temporarily bypass 
proximity detection, these personnel would either be forced to operate 
equipment without a clear line of sight or they would need to stand in 
conditions that pose different hazards, such as roof or rib hazards, or 
in locations that are not permitted under other regulations. The 
commenter recommended that the proximity detection system regulation 
for mobile equipment allow for personnel to temporarily bypass 
proximity detection when such conditions are encountered.
    MSHA may consider such a feature and seeks comment on the 
availability, use, and appropriateness of a temporary bypass feature. 
MSHA solicits information regarding how this feature could work with 
existing proximity detection systems and specific benefits or hazards 
that could result.
    One commenter noted that coal haulers and scoops would encounter 
sensors (miner-wearable components) much more frequently during 
operation than would continuous mining machines. Thus, there is an 
increased potential for nuisance tripping caused by inadvertent 
exposure into the detection zones of coal haulers, scoops, and other 
equipment. The commenter further noted the operation of equipment 
during the mining process requires multiple machines to operate, often 
in close proximity and can result in cross zone interference and 
nuisance tripping. As an example, the commenter noted a mine had to 
install additional equipment to help alleviate the cross zone 
interference issue. MSHA is aware that proximity detection system 
manufacturers must consider the interaction of machines with on-board 
operators to prevent unnecessary shut downs. MSHA observed a loading 
machine on which proximity detection equipment was installed to provide 
a silent zone for the on-board loading machine operator. This silent 
zone allowed the shuttle car to approach the loading machine without 
the loading machine operator causing the shuttle car to stop. MSHA is 
also aware that proximity detection system manufacturers have addressed 
this situation through programming miner-wearable components with 
specific permissions.
    In addition, MSHA received a comment from a machine manufacturer 
stating that its field testing experience with coal customers within 
the United States demonstrates measurable section production tonnage 
drops, within five to ten percent of normal production levels, when 
proximity detection is active on haulage equipment.
    MSHA is aware of mine operators that installed proximity detection 
systems on all mobile machines on the working section and experienced 
production decreases. Two of these mine operators reported that 
production later returned to pre-installation levels. MSHA observed 
that miners with experience working with mobile machines equipped with 
proximity detection systems are aware of the warning and shutdown zone 
locations and position themselves to minimize machine shutdowns. MSHA 
did observe a proximity detection system provide both a warning and 
then shut down the machine while the miner-wearable component was 
physically located outside the established warning and shutdown zones. 
This mine operator reported working with the proximity detection system 
manufacturer to resolve this type of occurrence. MSHA is aware of 
proximity detection system manufacturers that have mitigated nuisance 
alarms and other issues through engineering solutions. MSHA is also 
aware that proximity detection system manufacturers continue to improve 
their technology and develop solutions to minimize unwarranted warnings 
and shutdowns.
    MSHA solicits definitive data, including cost and time estimates, 
on delays in production caused by proximity detection system alarms due 
to cross zone interference and nuisance tripping as well as data on the 
length of time to return to pre-installation production levels. MSHA 
also seeks information on how to reduce or eliminate production delays 
when working with mobile machines equipped with proximity detection 
systems.
    MSHA solicits comments on how miners can place themselves in a safe 
work position to avoid causing nuisance alarms when one or more 
machines with proximity detection systems are on the working section. 
MSHA also solicits comments on miners' and mine operators' experiences 
when more than one miner may be in close proximity to one or more 
machines with proximity detection systems.
    MSHA solicited and received several comments on proposed training 
for miners who operate or work near machines equipped with proximity 
detection systems. NIOSH commented that gaining an in-depth view of 
miners' perspectives and how their job tasks and environment could be 
or are affected and then incorporating that information into training 
may help to prevent accidents and injuries that have been labeled as 
human error in the workplace. NIOSH further commented that studies of 
continuous mining machine operators have found that unintended 
consequences, such as a disruption in situational awareness, risks, 
hazards, and decision-making capabilities, can be avoided if human 
factors considerations are integrated into each stage of the technology 
design and implementation process. In addition, NIOSH stated that each 
piece of equipment needs to have a uniquely prescribed proximity system 
and the methods and amounts of training for each system should be 
designed specifically for each system and common platforms established 
where possible.
    One commenter stated that it has been evaluating and testing 
proximity detection system technologies since 2011. The commenter 
further stated that inadequate situational awareness is one of the 
primary factors in incidents attributed to human error and that the 
primary purpose of any proximity detection system/collision avoidance 
technology is to enhance situational awareness.
    Another commenter stated that proximity detection system technology 
has the potential to dangerously change how miners interact with mobile 
equipment in underground mines. The commenter further stated that it 
has witnessed multiple instances where miners have taken higher risks 
because of a false sense of security and that implementation of 
proximity detection systems on all mobile machines will lead miners to 
unsafely rely on the devices and act contrary to their intuition and 
training. In addition, the commenter stated that the first priority [of 
the final rule] should be a safe working position for a miner or 
machine operator, and second a noncontact rule.
    MSHA has observed miners relocate themselves to safer locations 
because of proximity detection system visible and

[[Page 2289]]

audible warnings. These warnings increased the miner's situational 
awareness regarding their location with respect to hazardous areas 
around the mobile machines.
    MSHA is interested in receiving additional information on miners' 
and mine operators' experiences with the effect that proximity 
detection systems have on miners' and machine operators' situational 
awareness and any examples where reliance on proximity detection 
technology may cause the miner to develop work practices that introduce 
additional hazards.
    MSHA observed representatives of mine operators and proximity 
detection system manufacturers provide instruction and task training to 
miners on the working section where proximity detection systems have 
been installed on mobile machines. Miners have demonstrated their 
knowledge of the installation, maintenance, and use of proximity 
detection systems to MSHA personnel. For example, MSHA observed one 
mine operator instruct miners to move into a crosscut adjacent to a 
coal haulage travelway. This increased their distance from the coal 
haulage travelway, averted unwanted proximity zone incursions, and 
ultimately placed the workers in a safer location. MSHA also observed a 
South African mine operator utilize data reports from the proximity 
detection systems to reinforce safe work practices specified in company 
policy. These data reports logged the instances when miner-wearable 
components entered the established warning and shutdown zones.
    MSHA is also interested in miners', mine operators' and proximity 
detection system manufacturers' experiences with training that could be 
done to increase miners' and machine operators' situational awareness 
around machines with proximity detection systems.

2. Electromagnetic Interference

    Electrical systems used in the mine, including proximity detection 
systems, can adversely affect the function of other electrical systems 
through the generation of electromagnetic interference. Several 
commenters noted that electromagnetic interference generated from a 
variety of external sources can adversely affect the performance of 
proximity detection systems. Several commenters stated that 
electromagnetic interference prevents proximity detection systems from 
functioning as designed. Another commenter stated that, because of 
electromagnetic interference, the proximity detection system failed to 
locate the miner-wearable component with any level of accuracy or 
consistency. The commenter further stated that, as a result, it was 
nearly impossible for the coal hauler to work in close proximity to the 
continuous miner or operator.
    In addition, on April 6, 2016, MSHA was made aware of concerns from 
mine operators regarding electromagnetic interferences with proximity 
detection systems from respirable coal mine dust sampling devices. On 
April 15 and May 2, 2016, MSHA notified underground coal mine operators 
who have a proximity detection system installed on any equipment that 
they should identify sources of any electromagnetic interference that 
adversely affect the performance of the proximity detection system. The 
above-referenced notices are included in the rulemaking record.
    Proposed Sec.  75.1733(b)(5) would require a mine operator to 
install a proximity detection system to prevent interference that 
adversely affects performance of any electrical system. MSHA clarifies 
that proposed Sec.  75.1733(b)(5) would require mine operators to 
prevent electromagnetic interference from affecting the operation of 
the proximity detection system or any other electrical system. MSHA 
intends that the system would be installed, maintained and operated in 
such a way that no electrical systems would be adversely affected due 
to interference. This would require periodic post-installation 
evaluation of all new potential sources of electromagnetic 
interference.
    To clarify this intent, MSHA is considering a revision to proposed 
Sec.  75.1733(b)(5) that would require proximity detection systems to 
be both installed and operated in a manner that prevents interferences 
that adversely affect the performance of any electrical system, 
including the proximity detection system. The operation of other 
electrical systems and equipment must not interfere with the 
performance of the proximity detection system, and the proximity 
detection system must not interfere with the performance of other 
electrical systems.
    MSHA has found that one type of common interference can be 
identified when electrical devices are placed within several inches of 
the miner-wearable component of the proximity detection system. 
Electromagnetic interference between these two systems can be mitigated 
by maintaining a minimum distance between a miner-wearable component 
and electrical devices. MSHA's technical staff estimated that each mine 
would require an average of 20 hours for a mining engineer to identify 
sources of electromagnetic interference and the minimum distance needed 
to mitigate the interference. Mining engineers will test the 
compatibility between electrical devices and proximity detection system 
components. Tests will be based on equipment use and mining conditions. 
MSHA anticipates that mining engineers will conduct physical tests for 
compatibility, review equipment user manuals, and consult with the 
original equipment manufacturers and the proximity detection system 
manufacturer.
    Based on MSHA's mine visits, the Agency estimated that mine 
operators are likely, on average, to introduce new electrical equipment 
twice per year. This would require a mining engineer two hours to 
identify and mitigate adverse interference from the new electrical 
equipment.
    Holding all other variables of the preliminary regulatory economic 
analysis constant, MSHA estimated that, on average, it would cost each 
mine operator $3,500 over ten years to comply with proposed Sec.  
75.1733(b)(5). MSHA seeks comments on the cost drivers for 
compatibility testing and the Agency's cost estimate for proposed Sec.  
75.1733(b)(5).
    MSHA is aware of best practices that mine operators and proximity 
detection system manufacturers have established to minimize the effects 
of electromagnetic interference. MSHA is aware that proximity detection 
system manufacturers have stated that minimum separation distances need 
to be maintained between miner-wearable components and other electrical 
equipment. During mine visits, miners have demonstrated the ability to 
maintain sufficient separation between miner-wearable components and 
other equipment to ensure proper proximity detection system function. 
MSHA is also aware of mine operators that have added inline filters on 
variable frequency drive shuttle cars to reduce electromagnetic 
emission interference. MSHA is aware of an electrical equipment 
manufacturer that added material designed to provide electromagnetic 
shielding to its gas detection equipment which reportedly reduced 
interference with proximity detection systems.
    MSHA solicits comments on the methods and practices mine operators 
have used or could use to identify sources of electromagnetic 
interference. MSHA is also interested in receiving information on the 
actions an operator has taken or could take to prevent such 
interference and how electromagnetic interference can be mitigated in 
instances where a miner needs to wear

[[Page 2290]]

multiple miner-wearable components because different proximity 
detection system models are operating on a working section. Please also 
describe procedures that were successful and those that were not 
successful in identifying interferences, as well as solutions to 
prevent adverse interference.
    MSHA has observed that wire mesh and metallic equipment can affect 
the proximity detection systems' warning and stopping zones. MSHA has 
also received reports of some pyrite deposits within coal seams 
affecting the use of the proximity detection system, but has not 
observed this effect first-hand. MSHA solicits information and data 
from mine operators and proximity detection system manufacturers on 
best practices to minimize the effects of these non-electrical 
interferences.
    Since the record closed, MSHA became aware of a proximity detection 
system design feature on a miner-wearable component that determines if 
the magnetic field sensing coils have been affected by electromagnetic 
interference and can no longer detect the magnetic field generated by 
the machine-mounted components. This feature provides a distinct 
audible and visible alarm on the miner-wearable component to alert 
miners when it is not functioning properly due to electromagnetic 
interference. MSHA is considering requiring this design feature for all 
miner-wearable components.
    MSHA solicits comments on the cost and availability of, and 
experience with, any proximity detection system feature or other 
technology that automatically alerts the miner or machine operator when 
the miner-wearable component or proximity detection system is not 
functioning properly due to electromagnetic interference.

3. Proximity Detection System Checks

    Proposed Sec.  75.1733(c)(1) would require that a mine operator 
designate a person to perform a check of machine-mounted components of 
the proximity detection system to verify that components are intact and 
the system is functioning properly, and to take action to correct 
defects. MSHA clarifies that under proposed paragraph (c)(1), the check 
would include verification that the warning and shutdown zones are set 
for the established proximity detection field distances and to meet the 
performance requirements under proposed Sec.  75.1733(b)(1) and (b)(2). 
Under proposed Sec.  75.1733(c)(1), the person designated to perform 
the check would verify that the machine-mounted components are intact 
and correctly mounted and the system is operating properly to identify 
a miner-wearable component and stop the machine. The check assures that 
the warning and shutdown zones around the perimeter of the machine are 
set according to a mine operator's specifications. In MSHA's 
experience, proximity detection system manufacturers have determined 
the type of checks that should be conducted to assure that their system 
is functioning properly. Mine operators are expected to follow the 
check procedures suggested by the manufacturers. MSHA has observed that 
a check of the warning and shutdown zones can be made by a miner 
walking around the machine with a miner-wearable component to confirm 
proper zone range. MSHA has also observed checking the machine shutdown 
function of the proximity detection system. This check involves placing 
a miner wearable component inside the shutdown zone and then attempting 
to initiate machine movements such as tramming. If the proximity 
detection system prevents machine movement, the system is functioning 
properly.
    The check would also include an examination of the machine-mounted 
components to assure that the field generators, antennas, cabling, and 
other components are undamaged and correctly mounted. The check would 
also assure that appropriate audible and visual warning signals are 
working as required. MSHA solicits comments on how the warning and 
shutdown zones can be checked, or tested, without putting machine 
operators at risk.
    With the clarification in this notice, MSHA estimates that the 
average time required for a check, which includes a verification that 
the warning and shutdown zones are set to meet the performance 
requirements under proposed Sec.  75.1733(b)(1) and (b)(2), would 
increase from 20 seconds to 6 minutes. MSHA's revised estimate of 6 
minutes reflects the time needed to: (1) Verify that the machine-
mounted components are intact and correctly mounted and the system is 
operating properly to identify a miner-wearable component and stop the 
machine, and (2) test and validate that the warning and stopping zones 
meet performance requirements. MSHA substituted the 6 minutes into the 
calculations of the proposed rule, held all other variables constant, 
and calculated that the average 10-year cost per mine increase would be 
$182,000. Many other assumptions and data values will be updated in a 
final regulatory analysis. MSHA seeks comments on the Agency's 
revisions to its proposed time estimate to comply with Sec.  
75.1733(c)(1).

4. South Africa Field-Trip Report and NIOSH Partnership Meeting

    The rulemaking record includes MSHA's Field-Trip Report on 
Proximity Detection Use in South Africa. On April 2 through April 13, 
2016, MSHA and NIOSH representatives visited South Africa to 
investigate the progress of proximity detection system technology in 
South Africa. The group visited two proximity detection system 
manufacturing facilities and observed proximity detection system 
performance in three underground coal mines. In addition, the group met 
with a proximity detection system technology developer with experience 
in proximity detection system development in South Africa and other 
countries. Among other topics, they discussed the developer's 
experiences with proximity detection system interference in South 
Africa.
    MSHA and NIOSH also met with representatives of South Africa's 
Department of Mineral Resources on the implementation of proximity 
detection systems on electric-powered, trackless mobile machinery in 
South Africa's surface and underground mines. MSHA's report and 
presentation materials from the South Africa trip are included in the 
rulemaking record and available for comment.
    MSHA has also included in the rulemaking record materials from the 
NIOSH Proximity Detection Partnership Meeting. On June 22, 2016, NIOSH 
held a partnership meeting that included representatives from MSHA, 
industry, labor, and proximity detection system manufacturers. 
Materials presented during the partnership meeting are included in the 
rulemaking record and available for comment.

III. Compliance Cost Revision

    MSHA initially estimated that the proposed rule would cost mine 
operators, over ten years, approximately $536,000 per mine. MSHA has 
revised estimates for two provisions to reflect the Agency's 
clarification on the proposed requirements. Table 1 summarizes the 
changes to estimated cost for these two provisions.

[[Page 2291]]



              Table 1--Average 10-Year Total Cost per Mine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Average 10-
                                           year per mine
                                               cost
---------------------------------------------------------
Total 10-Year Cost as Proposed on 09/02/        $536,000
 2015...................................
Changes:
    Proximity Detection System Checks...         182,000
    Electromagnetic Interference                   3,500
     Evaluation.........................
                                         -------------------------------
        Total Change....................         185,500
                                         -------------------------------
Total Revised Cost......................  ..............        $721,500
Percent increase in average cost per      ..............             35%
 mine...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rulemaking record and comment period for the proposed rule is 
reopened until February 8, 2017. MSHA solicits comments on all aspects 
of the proposed rule. The Agency requests that comments be specific as 
possible and include any technological and economic feasibility data.

Joseph A. Main,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2017-00105 Filed 1-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4520-43-P